Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Intellectual Affairs

Prophets of Deceit

August 19, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The recent surge of right-wing fantasy into American public discourse should not be surprising. Claims that Obama is a foreigner, that health-care reform means bureaucratic death squads, that “the country we once knew is being destroyed,” as anguished people at town halls have put it – only on the most superficial level are these beliefs the product of ignorance, irrationality, and intractable boneheadedness.

Let’s face reality. An African-American man without so much as an Anglo-Saxon syllable to his name is now occupying an institution called (not on purely descriptive grounds) the White House. What did you think was going to happen? In the 1760s, George Washington complained that the British had a “systematic plan” to render the Americans “as tame and abject as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway.” (An interesting choice of terms, that.) This is a country in which anxiety goes deep, and all the way back. It is not an afterthought.

Mostly, of course, it stays in check. With enough stress on the system, the craziness tends to flare up, like a cold sore. The “viral” political message involved sounds, in part, something like this:

“What’s wrong? I’ll tell you what is wrong. We have robbed man of his liberty. We have imprisoned him behind the iron bars of bureaucratic persecution. We have taunted the American businessman until he is afraid to sign his name to a pay check for fear he is violating some bureaucratic rule that will call for the surrender of a bond, the appearance before a committee, the persecution before some Washington board, or even imprisonment itself.... In the framework of a democracy the great mass of decent people do not realize what is going on when their interests are betrayed. This is a day to return to the high road, to the main road that leads to the preservation of our democracy, and to the traditions of our republic.”

As it happens, this is not a transcript from Fox News, but taken from the opening pages of Leo Lowenthal and Norbert Guterman’s book Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator, first published in 1949 by Harper and Brothers. Plus ça change....

The passage just quoted appears in “The Agitator Speaks” – an introductory segment of the book presenting an archetypal harangue by a Depression-era radio ranter or streetcorner demagogue. Father Couglin remains the most notorious of the lot -- perhaps the only one with name recognition today. But scores of them were in business during the worst of the crisis, and enough of them kept plying their trade after the war to worry the American Jewish Committee, which sponsored the study.

My first reading of Prophets of Deceit was about 20 years ago. At the time, its interest to me was for the most part historical – as an example of Frankfurt School theory being used for empirical social research. Lowenthal, a German emigre, was the main author. The focus of his other research was the sociology of literature and popular culture. Guterman, identified on the title page as a co-author, was primarily a translator. The preface expresses appreciation to a young assistant named Irving Howe for “much help in preparing the final manuscript.” That may understate his role. Some chapters are suspiciously well written.

In analyzing speeches and writings by the Depression agitators, Lowenthal showed a particular interest in how they operated as rhetoric – how the imagery, figures of speech, and recurrent themes worked together, appealing to the half-articulated desires and frustrations of the demagogue’s followers. Another of the Frankfurters, Theodore Adorno, had produced a similar if more narrowly focused monograph, The Psychological Technique of Martin Luther Thomas' Radio Addresses, published a few years ago by Stanford University Press. And Prophets of Deceit itself was the third in the AJC’s five-volume series “Studies in Prejudice.”

The insights and blindspots of this large-scale effort to analyze “the authoritarian personality” generated controversy that continues all these decades later. But I wasn’t thinking of any of that when Prophets of Deceit came back to mind not long ago.

The catalyst, rather, was my first exposure to the cable talk-show host Glenn Beck. His program, on the de facto Republican party network Fox, has been a locus for much of the pseudopopulist craziness about how the Presidency has been taken over by a totalitarian illegal alien. You will find most of the themes of this form of political thinking cataloged by Lowenthal and associates. (Sixty years ago, the ranting tended very quickly to become anti-Semitic, while now it seems the conspiracy is run by the Kenyans. This change deserves closer study.)

But the striking thing about Beck’s program was not its ideological message but something else: its mode of performance, which was so close to that described in Prophets of Deceit that I had to track down a copy to make sure my memory was not playing tricks. The book was reissued a few years ago in an edition of Lowenthal’s collected writings published by Transaction.

In case you have not seen him in action, Beck “weeps for his country.” Quite literally so: the display of waterworks is the most readily parodied aspect of his performance. He confesses to being terrified for the future, and quakes accordingly. He acts out aggressive scenarios, such as one in which he pretended to be Obama throwing gasoline on an Average American and threatening to set him on fire.

Prophets of Deceit describes Beck’s act perfectly, six decades avant la lettre: “something between a tragic recital and a clownish pantomime.”

The performance is intended, not to provide information or even to persuade, but rather to create a space in which rational discussion can be bypassed entirely. The demagogue, whether of old or new vintage, “does not confront his audience from the outside; he seems rather like someone arising from its midst to express its innermost thoughts. He works, so to speak, from inside the audience, stirring up what lies dormant there.... It is difficult to pin him down to anything and he gives the impression that he is deliberately playacting.... Moving in the twilight zone between the respectable and the forbidden, he is ready to use any device, from jokes to doubletalk to wild extravagances.”

Instead of argument about the relative merits of this or that policy or action, this mode fosters beliefs that are “always facile, simple, and final, like daydreams.” The point is not to analyze or to convince members of the public but to offer “permission to indulge in anticipatory fantasies in which they violently discharge those emotions against alleged enemies.”

A lot has changed since Prophets of Deceit appeared, but not everything. Rereading it now leaves the definite sense that we’ve been here before.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Prophets of Deceit

  • Plus ca change...indeed
  • Posted by William Cunion , Political Science at Mount Union College on August 19, 2009 at 7:00am EDT
  • This is a fine article, and I agree with it almost entirely. However, it would be so refreshing if commentators on the left would at least mention in passing that so many Americans were similarly obsessed with their own presidential villain for the last eight years. Rhetoric filled with "imagery, figures of speech, and recurrent themes" working together "not to provide information or even to persuade, but rather to create a space in which rational discussion can be bypassed entirely." That sounds awfully familiar to many of us. Whether the rhetoric targets Jews, Kenyans, or even "neo-conservatives," this kind of discourse is deeply corrosive to the polity, but we won't make progress until we can see it...even when we want to agree with it.

  • Response to Glenn Beck Criticism
  • Posted by kim , Graduate Student at University of Houston on August 19, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Seems to me that after reading your article - I find you just as guilty of deceit - as that of which you are accusing Glenn Beck of. I personally gain much factual information from Glenn Beck and Fox News - All you provide is "intellectual criticism" - No hard facts of what is taking place in our country. You need to get out of your ivory tower and speak to the average - "average" - I say - not "intellectual" - citizen - to even understand what is taking place.

    I personally do not trust Obama because he changes depending on who is audience is. He is a christian to christians - a muslim to muslims - a liberal to liberals - a centrist to centrists. No one - absolutely - no one can please all the people all the time. I love America and for what its founding principles stood for - I'm proud to be an American for those reasons. I am not at all for the Anti-American rederick of the left - America is a good country - not perfect - but good - at least it used to be.

    I still believe that the silent majority "the sleeping Giant" has only begun to awake. You seem to think you know so much - but are so out of touch with the average American citizen. You need to wake up and stop pointing fingers at others. I'm glad Glenn Beck and Fox News speak so loudly - You'll not persuade me otherwise.

    Education is good but not if it makes you feel or think you are superior to others. A simple disagreement of opinions is far better than having to try to defame or devalue the opponent. I'm very tired of all the criticisms of conservatives since we have finally begun to make our opinions known. It has been ok for the liberals to shout their opinions over the years - but conservatives - that is not to be allowed. I think in this country we do have the freedom of speech - at least for now - but Liberals who expouse this freedom are the very ones who want to muzzle conservatives. WE HAVE TO SPEAK UP - IT IS OUR DUTY - NOT JUST OUR RIGHT. GOD BLESS AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE.

  • read up on it? what a concept!
  • Posted by barbara fister at Gustauvus on August 19, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Excellent essay, Scott. I love it when you find a work of scholarship - even one that might appear a little dusty on the shelves - and find something in it that totally nails a situation that seems inexplicable and new. Thanks. This is a keeper.

  • Rhetoric
  • Posted by Jose R. Sanchez , Politics Dept at Long Island University - Brooklyn on August 19, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Kim provides unintentionally funny commentary. Kim says "education is good but not if it makes you feel or think you are superior to others." I guess Kim feels superior to proper spelling. Witness Kim's decrying "Anti-American rederick of the left." Whatever it is that Kim does at the University of Houston, spell-check is usually available.

    More generally, Kim seems possessed of the kind of "half-articulated desires and frustrations" that McLemee pointed to. I read a lot of complaints but found no "hard facts." This is so sad for a member of a university.

  • Scott McLemee plays the race card and that's deceitful
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on August 19, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • It's difficult to bother reading past the first couple paragraphs because of the author's (faulty) reasoning that race is the reason for opposition to Obama. Objections to Obama and his policies are not based on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character and the beliefs and ideologies which underlie his actions.

  • Posted by Not an Obama Supporter on August 19, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Just to be clear, Scott wrote columns here supporting Obama during the election. One way to discredit opposing political views is to label them as disingenuous using an outdated text as an excuse. That way there is no need to consider the substance of those views.

    Obama has contributed to the birther movement by being more secretive about his past than any previous candidate or president. I have to ask myself why he doesn't just release the information being kept from the public and end the questions, especially given his promise of a more transparent presidency. Obama's behavior fuels the "nonsense" being cavalierly dismissed in this article.

    For myself, I would prefer that this website stick to issues of higher education and not inject political opinions into discussions using thin devices, such as discovery of past books that seem wonderful largely because they support one's preconceived opinions. In science, a disconfirmatory approach is used precisely because picking and choosing ideas or evidence to support one's premise is capable of proving nothing.

  • Sleeping Giant
  • Posted by Scott , Center for Graduate Studies at Baker College on August 19, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I agree with "kim" that the "silent majority 'the sleeping giant'" is just awakening, but perhaps not in the manner that s/he anticipates. I'm curious as to her major in graduate school, but I'm guessing it's not a field that deals in hard facts or science.

    I have great faith in the common sense of the American public, when they are adequately informed, and have noticed that they are becoming more and more angry about the slog that organizations such as Fox News and people such as Glenn Beck spew. This nonsense regarding health care in the Town Hall meetings is just the beginning. As the anger from the left grows, conservatives will increasing complain about losing their heat, while having pee'd on their own campfire. Eventually, the Republican party hijacked by the right wing, will fade into oblivion, victims of their own venomous rhetoric.

    Like suicide bombers, Beck, Coulter, Limburgher, and others of their ilk will eventually blow themselves up. It's too bad that they will inflict collateral damage on some pressing issues.

  • The Liberal/Conservative Trap
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 19, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • In any given moment in Western history, just what is it "conservativism" is trying to conserve, and "liberalism" is trying to liberate? Once we get into permutations like "Neoconservative" and "Neoliberal" things get really befuddled. Perhaps any and all these "isms" want variously to conserve and liberate a class system, but not question the class system per se?

    They are ways of thinking offered by various factions of elites and that restrict a radical rethinking of "the sleeping giant's" true situation at the hands of a--factional--ruling class. That radical rethinking may be necessary for the solution proposed by Al Smith: "The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy."

    I doubt Obama and mainstream Democrats are the answer any more than Bill Clinton proved to be, both parties being wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations. Corporations toggle us back and forth between two parties they own and control, thereby exerting over all of us a private tyranny. Then both parties resort to dubious rhetoric to get our ratification of the very things that work against us and for the elites.

    See Adam Curtis's documentary _The Trap_ (available on YouTube). It's an incomplete but interesting point of departure for the present discussion.

     

  • Posted by Phil on August 19, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • William Cunion: "...it would be so refreshing if commentators on the left would at least mention in passing that so many Americans were similarly obsessed with their own presidential villain for the last eight years."

    Yes, there were and are obsessions on the left too. The the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the liberal equivalent of the birthers. But the difference is that the left paranoids were and are marginal, because they are not fanned on by ranting media figures and elected officials with audiences of millions. Polls now show that a majority of Republican voters say that they don't believe that or don't know whether Obama was born in the US (although polls also reveal that something like 10 percent of them don't know that Hawaii is a US state). By contrast, the 9/11 "truth" movement has always been a tiny fringe.

  • No difference anymore.
  • Posted by cj on August 19, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Beck and company are certainly no more a concern than Begala, Carville, Oberman and Maddow et al..
    Wasn't it just a few years ago that "Bush: Wanted Dead or Alive" posters could be seen in this "great" country?
    And what has this got to do with "Inside Higher Education" anyway?

  • Beck is qualitatively different
  • Posted by Amanda on August 19, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • cj, Not an Obama Supporter, Amy DeRosa, kim -- In your opinion, do Maddow, Olbermann, etc. approach truth the same way that Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh do? Certainly, there is spin and pitched rhetoric on both sides. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree. In my mind, though, Beck et al are entirely different animals, qualitatively different, in that they are willing to fabricate complete mistruths. I have yet to see Maddow/Olbermann base their reporting and commentary on fiction.

    That is the problem that many have with Fox News -- not the conservative slant so much as the outright fabrication of stories, and refusal to fact-check. See, from Scott's article, "create a space in which rational discussion can be bypassed entirely" and "Instead of argument about the relative merits of this or that policy or action..."

  • I woke up 8 years ago
  • Posted by Jon on August 19, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • The more I read about how the radical political actions of today resemble the radical political actions of centuries past and the lessons that come with them, the more I am amazed that these lessons are still not learned. The message in this article is both frightening and enlightening. The conservatives are repeating these same destructive mistakes of trying to stop progress on the basis of collective lies, false accusations, uncivilized behavior, and the incapability to provide factual evidence in the hope of stopping a man they feel does not belong in the White House despite the fact that he won the election last November. In short, conservatives are using fear and prejudice to keep this country's first black leader from succeeding because they are afraid that he will and they refuse to accept it.

     

     

    Why are people still demanding to see Obama's authentic birth certificate despite the issue being resolved months ago? Why were people shouting and ranting at the tea parties last April about higher income taxes for the average citizen when there were no such? Why are people rudely shouting nonsense about death panels and government takeover during what are supposed to be civilized town hall discussions? Why are people waving Obama's image being depicted as Hitler on their signs outside town hall meetings as if they are the same as the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, while they clearly have no understanding of the Holocaust. Why are people bringing firearms to these events hoping to intimidate people?

     

     

    Conservatives and Republicans claim their attacking Obama is the same as liberals and Democrats attacking George W. Bush, but it's not the same. Obama wants to provide healthcare to American citizens who cannot afford it. Bush wanted to invade another country during his tenure, and did so with trumped up evidence, resulting in the deaths of thousands. Obama is trying to fix the nation's economic crisis with plans that have the potential for success and the risk of failure. Bush never put regulation in place, letting the major businesses cut loose to do what they want, thus resulting in the disastrous economic situation this country is in.

  • Birthers v. Truthers
  • Posted by Al on August 19, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Phil, I hate to break the news to you, but the truthers were not a "tiny fringe" as you claim. Polls show that over 60% of Democrats believed or were not sure as to whether Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, which is a higher percentage than Republicans who believe or are not sure as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii.

    After almost 8 years of non-stop Bush as Hitler, Bush as the devil, Bush as Hitler and the devil, Bushitler McChimpy Haliburton, Bush assassination fantasies, Bush the christianist, Bush the fascist, Bush the christianist/fascist, etc., the feigned indignation of the left about a few bozos who show up outside of town hall meetings holding Obama as Hitler posters (at least some of whom appear to be Democrats, union goons, and/or LaRouchites) is simply laughable.

  • Posted by Sandy on August 19, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Al, please cite your source for the claim that polls earlier this decade showed that 60% of Democrats believed or were not sure that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.

  • Ignore the rederick!
  • Posted by Scott McLemee , columnist at Inside Higher Ed on August 19, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • A friend wrote to tease me that I must have written the second comment here as a piece of satire. Just for the record, I did not. (Nor, indeed, could I.)

    Also, the person signing himself "Not an Obama Supporter" says that I "wrote columns here supporting Obama during the election." This is, in short, completely untrue. Nor have I ever written anything in support of Obama since then -- or elsewhere, for that matter. Any claim to the contrary is false.

    Hyperventilation makes people see things sometimes. I suggest breathing slowly, perhaps using a paper bag.

  • Truthers
  • Posted by Al on August 19, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Sandy, a 2007 Rasmussen poll found that 35% of Democrats believed that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% were not sure.

  • Birthers/Truthers
  • Posted by RParker on August 19, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • There indeed was a Rasmussen Reports poll in 2007 where 61% of Democrats thought that Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks or weren't sure. But there are a few differences between them and Birthers:

    1) A memo Bush received on Aug 6, 2001 said that al-Qaida members were in the US, had a support network, and were planning a terrorist strike in the near future that could involve hijacking a plane. It also referred to evidence of buildings in New York being cased by terrorists.

    Is this advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Now I don't think Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen specifically the way it did, but ask me if he had any advance knowledge and I would have to say yes because of this.

    2) Obama's valid birth certificate that is used to obtain a passport or any security clearance in the US has been posted and has been examined by a number of nonpartisan reputable media source and confirmed. The Republican governor of Hawaii has confirmed a valid original on file at the state. This is hard and fast proof unless you spin a complicated conspiracy theory. In comparison, what Bush knew or didn't know is much harder to say.

    3) While only 7% of Democrats have any doubts about Obama's US birth, fully 26% of Republicans have doubts about Bush knowing about 9/11.

  • Does the public really know best?
  • Posted by Jennifer on August 19, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Years ago I began tuning out morning radio talk shows because the "personalities" would exaggerate or alter information to get a reaction and inflame the public. Callers to the show would inevitably get fired up, too. The next thing you know, people at work or at the coffee shop were repeating this misinformation as if they heard it from an expert. People would get worked up over non-issues and incorrect information! This is what seems to be happening with health care reform.

    Recently, when the public was outraged by automotive company executives taking private jets to Washington to ask for financial assistance to stay afloat, I wondered what information they had that proved these executives were "wasting" money using corporate jets. If we think in terms of the hourly rate of a corporate CEO and realize that his time is money then wouldn't it be safe to say that waiting around for a commercial plane might actually cost the company more? (Especially considering how much CEO's are being paid these days - but that's a different matter!) A CEO might travel by taxi to the airport, take a commercial flight that can't get him to his destination city until after normal business hours, then stay the night at a hotel. If he can't get a flight out that next day, then he stays another night. How much time did he just waste? Wouldn't he get much more important work done if he just took a car straight to the airport hanger, jets out as soon as he arrives, and then can return home at his convenience? The public didn't have any information to support their claim that these jets were a real representation of corporate waste and greed. I'm not providing proof otherwise but this point didn't even seem to enter the conversation! (There is research that points to the financial payoffs of utilizing corporate jets versus commercial aviation; I just don’t have time to cite it for you.) As a result of this public outrage, our government "representatives" got involved and insisted that companies asking for money should not use corporate jets. More and more companies feared a public backlash and grounded or even sold their fleets. Much of the industry in Witchita, Kansas was supported by this market and when the auto companies and others stopped their airplane orders the economy of Witchita took a nosedive. July unemployment rolls in Kansas included 157,000 more people than July of last year, bring the unemployment rate as high as 8.8% in Sedgwick County, which was mostly supported by Cessna, Boeing and Hawker Beechcraft. The ripple effect was profound for the people involved in aircraft manufacturing and sales. And it was all brought on by mass hysteria without any basis in fact.

    When I watch what is happening across America in town hall meetings meant to address public questions and concerns about universal healthcare, I think back to the auto company/aviation manufacturing mess. I realize that if I decide to publicly advocate for something, you bet your bottom I had better know what I'm talking about because the affect can be just as important as the cause I'm fighting for or against. If I get emotional and shout and exaggerate and try to turn someone into a terrible villain so others will see how evil this person or proposal might be, I had better be sure that I know the facts.

    I think sometimes we get just the overall idea of something without completely understanding it and then we make assumptions about the rest. We can have a very emotional reaction to something that initially appears to be against what we believe in. If we just go with that gut reaction, then everything we see or hear after that will be seen through this emotional, clouded filter. Academics and scientists are taught to try to remove the filter as much as possible by collecting facts, looking for cracks in the information, and getting affirmation from other academics/scientists that their findings are solid. However, when John Q. Public doesn't understand this process and sees Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter getting emotional and trying to make connections between the issue and something that goes against their core beliefs they may not think to themselves, "Is this really true?" If they just say, "Yeah, I hate that too!" they may not allow themselves the space to critically examine the facts and come to their own conclusions. Calling Obama a Nazi instantly brings imagery and emotions about communism and anti-Americanism and all things evil. If they already don't agree with Obama's political leanings, then they may start to connect the emotional reaction to Hitler with Obama. If all your "news" comes from Glenn Beck and you hear these outrageous claims as if they are the "news", you eventually will jump on the bandwagon in order to protect your country from the evil that is quality healthcare for everyone, not just the elite. (This emotional reaction can happen to everyone, no matter what the political leaning, if we are not using critical thinking.)

    I'm not sure how I feel about this healthcare reform mainly because I’m too busy to learn about the proposals that have been made. If I don't understand it, you will not find me shouting out on the corner that we must pass it. I'll either learn more or stay out of it. I WILL NOT shout that anyone against universal healthcare wants the poor to lead miserable, disease-filled lives, while watching the cost of healthcare rise beyond what even the average citizen can afford to pay. I won’t shout that failure to pass reform is tantamount to pulling the plug on our elderly and watching them slowly die because they can’t afford their medication any longer. I can't say that because I don't know that for sure, even if my gut reaction is afraid of those very things.

  • Exploiting Collective Trauma
  • Posted by Robert D. Stolorow , Author, Trauma and Human Existence (Routledge, 2007) on August 20, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • As I have claimed in a series of Huffington Post blogs, right-wing terror tactics stir our dread of retraumatization in an effort to bring us under the spell of destructive ideologies.

  • Big, Bad Mr. Beck
  • Posted by pi on August 20, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Sorry Scott -- transparent ad hominum attacks barely register on our oxygen-starved brains out here in the fetid intellectual backwaters of America. Of course you are right. That yahoo Mr. Beck should understand what a demagogue he's become and pipe down! He's so scary! Who could even imagine the People and their so-called Opinions have any weight? That pesky Constitution is *so* inconvenient... My advice is to just play the classic race, anti-semitism, party, union, and authoritarian cards. They explain everything. If that fails, maybe you and Saul Alinsky (you know who he is, bless his departed soul) can apply to tie Mr. Beck's shoe laces.

  • A sorry state of affairs
  • Posted by Lynne on August 20, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Scott thank you for your very thoughtful piece.

    Regardless of one's opinion of Obama's policies, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that we are in a culturally ugly period in this country--where there are more and more Glenn Becks and less and less interest in rational discourse. Consider, for example, the scores of reality TV shows that are designed to put people in situations where they are encouraged and even required to abandon rational behavior in favor of impulsive, thoughtless and hurtful acts. After all, that makes good TV and America eats it up.

    So I suppose we should not be surprised when people at town hall meetings carry guns, refer to the proposed health care bill as Nazi policy and compare Obama to Hitler. And as much as I had to applaud Representative Barney Frank when he told one young woman spewing the Obama is Hitler theme that "trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table," it feels like we are ALL taking part in a long episode of the Jerry Springer show.

    While many of us thought the election of Obama was the inflection point, in fact the real inflection point might soon be upon us. Unless those of us who seek to have civil and rational fact-based dialogue can carry the day, then the Far Right's analogies to Nazi Germany will be misplaced, but not incorrect.

  • Selling Audiences to Advertisers
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 20, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Don't forget that the talk show craze and the tabloidization of the news is not about informing the public but rather selling audiences to advertizers.

    And see political scientist Joan Roelofs's "Return to the Dark Ages" in which she argues that we live in a kind of urban feudalism, and her essay on "The Military-Industrial Complex" (both in Counterpunch)in which she shows the depths of our economic addiction to militarism.

    See also her book on "Foundations" for an analysis how philantropic organizations likewise impede democracy. Corporations have bought into and have bought off just about every avenue of mass political deliberation. See also Robert McChesney, Adam Curtis, et. al. on corporate-owned media and the role of public relations companies in both the private and public sectors--all of which foreclose authentic democratic deliberation.

    See any number of works on increasing social inequality in The New Guilded Age. In my view this vague "back-of-the-mind" sense of increasing inequality is the root of much of the fear--quite manipulable--that in turn so much benefits private elites at the public's (our!) expense.

    As I said above, the elites basically own both parties and can then toggle us between them in our hope for "change." But democracy is greatly constricted without an analysis of the corporate propaganda system. For a non-corporate news alternative consider Pacifica, specifically Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! program. Read In These Times, Z Magazine, The Progressive, The Texas Observer, etc. for independent journalism. Conservatives and Libertarians, you may not agree with these, but it would be more democratic to engage in debate with those outlets directly than any media in which corporations advertise, Madow, Oberman, et. al.

  • Scott's article
  • Posted by DFS on August 20, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Scott, I am often amazed at your ability to explore various subjects of interest to the academy.

    But here, you have to admit, you could have done a better job: not of utility of the premise of your article, but perhaps of the choice of your premise. It has to flavor your article.

    This is obviously an opinion piece, therefore, and you should have qualified this in the title. Else, I would agree with the other posters who stated that this article doesn't belong in the venue of IHE.

  • "This is obviously an opinion piece"
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 20, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • DFS, But of course. It appears under that regular segment of IHE known as "Views." It's an editorial, an opinion piece.

  • That's right, Curro,
  • Posted by DFS on August 20, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • But it's also conveniently subsumed under the category Intellectual Affairs.

    Can we do just that -- only leaving the politics aside?

  • Like the Founding Fathers
  • Posted by Alfred Thorpe on August 20, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • DFS: Yes, intellectual affairs should leave politics aside, like John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. I'm glad they left politics aside while hashing out the Constitution, and afterwards debating in the press its ratification as Federalists and Anti-federalists.

    By all means, human societies would do well to leave politics aside. Pretend it's just not there.

    Curro Romero: Thanks for pointing out how the media "sells audiences to advertisers." I hadn't thought of it quite that way. That would tend to put a damper on thinking, wouldn't it?

  • I must protest.
  • Posted by An Observer on August 20, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I have seen DFS comment here. He believes what he says. When he knows he's wrong, he comes back and actually says he's wrong.

    I have seen no one else here do that, and I have read this site for many years.

    The rest of you, therefore, are either idealogues, indifferent, or cowards.

    In this case, though, he has a point. Just put the politics aside, and re-read his stuff.

  • Qualifications
  • Posted by My two cents on August 21, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I had a professor in graduate school who used to say, "What is the opinion of those who are qualified to have an opinion?" There seems to be something in the populism of American culture that causes people to think that even if they only know about something second or third or even fourth hand that they are qualified to form and declare their opinion about something. If the health care debate, or global warming debate, or whatever, were restricted to only those who could actually claim to know all the relevant data, the debate might go much more smoothly. There would definitely be a lot fewer people involved. However, this kind of "elitism" tends to go against the grain of American culture. The popular media also allow no real checks against those who put themselves forward as experts, but aren't.

    I think that this is implicitly the point of representative government. A lot of these issues are too time consuming for the average citizen to adequately inform him or herself about. We are forced to trust the people we elect. And if we don't trust them, we need to elect others. I would go so far as to suggest that the increasing prevalence of popular polling actually undermines the nature of representative government. We atart placing too much weight in the opinions of relatively uninformed people.

  • Trust
  • Posted by Terrence Hawkley on August 21, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • You mean polls that show the majority of citizens want Single Payer health care?

    People never trust politicians once they are elected. So they elect new representatives, and lose that trust too. Why? Because people don't generate serious candidates for office: corporations do. Is it any wonder, then, that government primarily represents the interests of corporations and not those of average Americans?

    What's that saying, "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten."

    The first Pres. Bush said in his inaugural that for the first time in history we don't have figure out what kind of system we want to have. We don't have to wrest justice from kings. We don't have to stay up late into the night debating what kind of system we want. We only have "to summon it from within."

    Isn't that nice?

  • What Were the Lessons in the 30s?
  • Posted by Robert Beswick on August 23, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Scott,

    I think you've nailed it here. My question is what are the lessons from the 30s? Were the agitators ultimately successful, or were they defeated? If they were defeated how and by whom?

  • Posted by wei at UChicago on August 24, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • While a touching sentiment, the last 10 years have pretty much undermined any faith I might have had in "the American public." Not only are blatant falsehoods and fabrications entertained as serious questions by so-called regular folk, but Americans have evinced a capacity for both completely misunderstanding the complexity of the public policy choices facing them as well as an utter disdain for any expertise knowledge that might actually inform and shape their ill-formed opinions. This is neither a new phenomenon nor the exclusive preserve of one side of the political spectrum - though conservatives seem to be trucking this garbage more now than at any point in recent memor - but it is certainly evidence of the widespread systematic dismantling of our public education infrastructure. I weep that such a powerful country is ruled by such morons.

  • Yes, Alfred,
  • Posted by DFS on August 25, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Let's just pretend politics don't exist.

    I believe that's how progress is made. Otherwise, you're just an angry, vindictive twit continuously and perpetually living in the past.

    Grow up, and get over it. Become dispassionate. We learned that at the university.